This may sound very remiss of me and I do judge myself harshly and ignorant as well as lazy. I know little of the politics of my country and how it all works. I get to know and comprehend bits and pieces. But overall I am clueless. I do not feel at all proud of this fact. I try to learn as I go along and get involved in things as they come to the fore as with the recent referendum on the voting system for the UK. This took place on 5th May and the result was for no change. Disappointing in a way I think as the people in this country are so scared for change. If it didn't work then it could be changed? But ooh no. So we continue with first past the post system. The alternative wasn't ideal either and the greater conscience won.
I enjoyed finding out different people's points of views which helped to inform me.Now Ed Miliband is proposing to abolish elections to Labour's shadow cabinet. I think I like Ed's underlying principles. I wonder though if he is finding himself compromised trying to be leader of the Labour party. And so I am not sure really what this proposal really means to us the people.
From what I am reading so far, it seems that Blair had a tight little community. Protected by a system that privileged the people in the "in" group. I am not sure how dramatic I am making it from the one point of view I have read so far. But it seems to me the in group were secured somehow and could not easily be contested. I am very distrusting. I think a little pissed off that I may have been taken in by the propaganda of Blair. He sounded good but things were done that seemed very underhand to me. I think the Conservatives are even worse by the way!! And Liberals are dragging along with it.
That's so feeble an argument as I have little to back it up with right now and of course in reality I do not have the time to actually be researching this - I need to get on with my studying.
Anyway Michael Meacher MP is supporting Ed's proposal to abolish the shadow cabinet elections.....
"One’s first reaction to Ed Miliband’s abolition of shadow cabinet elections is that this is a step away from party democracy. But on closer reflection this is a shrewd, and radical, break with tradition which makes a lot of sense in current circumstances. Ed is faced with a shadow cabinet in which only 4 of its 19 members voted for him in the leadership election 9 months ago and which has shown itself signally unwilling to accept the message of that leadership campaign that the party wanted a change of direction. A leader voted in on that mandate can be expected to take the necessary steps to deliver what he promised. But there’s more to this than meets the eye.
From year zero in 1994, as Blair and his followers then saw it, the Blairite political machine immediately set about transforming the composition of the PLP into an impregnable stronghold which would support its leader in all circumstances. They succeeded spectacularly. Preferred candidates for the Blairite New Labour faction were given a head start in all parliamentary selections via the network of regional officers, which the machine dominated. They were given advance access to membership lists (the electoral college), they were strongly promoted behind the scenes by discreet pressure from the regional office, they were protected against rival candidates at the shortlisting, and the handling of postal votes often turned out to their advantage.
As a result, of the 350 Labour MPs elected in 1997, perhaps 250 could be broadly described as New Labour devotees. By 2010 that number was reduced to around 150 out of a total of 250. New Labour was greatly attenuated both numerically and ideologically, but crucially still clung on as a bloc able to thwart any significant shift away from the Blairite adherence to privatisation, deregulation, unfettered markets, corporate interests, and inequality. Any leader committed to change course from the disastrous policies that lost 5 million votes between 1997 and 2010 would have no alternative but to break with this cycle of decline. That is exactly what Ed is now doing.
Contrary to the usual media-driven drivel, Ed Miliband is not a proto-leftist nor a Red Ed caricature. He’s a thoroughly decent man with genuinely radical instincts who wants to lead Britain out of the dead-end into which its’s being driven by Osborne stagnation and Cameron market obsession. He has a readiness to listen, a tolerance of factions within the party which he dearly wants to heal, but if need be a steely ruthlessness to cut through blockages which frustrate the party’s advance, as he is now displaying.
The party desperately needs refreshing both structurally – to restore its suppressed internal democracy – and ideologically, both to set out the clear alternative vision to the broken neoliberal capitalism as well as to appeal emotionally and practically to the squeezed middle and abandoned working class base. That is no easy task which cannot be rushed, but EM remains by far the party’s best hope to secure this objective and this latest move will bring it a lot closer." As per his Blog.
But surely this way, where the party leader would be free to appoint people of his choice to the shadow cabinet removes some party democracy? And doesn't this mean he will be surrounded by personal preferences? Isn't this a closed shop for the "boys"? I don't see how this is any better. In fact I would have thought an elected cabinet is less likely to be a closed shop? What am I missing here?
The Guardian reported "Aides said he had taken the step to end the distraction of elections and to make his top team focus on the task of holding the government to account. They believe repeated internal elections make some shadow cabinet members as concerned by their popularity among their colleagues as with their impact on the general public". Yes I can see the distraction. It's all so flipping corrupt and no one is really getting on with the job. I wonder how the Conservative cabinet is decided upon?
Of course the fact that only 4 of the Shadow cabinet were actually people who voted Ed in as party leader may be influencing his decision. Perhaps? And he will certainly find opposition within that. In my hopefulness I have a fantasy that he is a wonderful man with only the best for the country in his mind. I thought that about Blair but actually now I think differently. He has had such a lot of bad press and I am no doubt influenced by the innuendos of self gain that I think I have picked up.
Now his party opted not to abolish the elections in a vote earlier in the year. Instead they wanted to increase the annual vote to bi-annual. I suppose this would give a constant re-assessment and keep cabinet members on their toes, less complacency. But if this resulted in them spending all their time canvassing, poo it would be costly and time wasting. Imagine if we did that at work all the time. The funny thing I know PD for example is fantastic at his job and a great team leader overall. But if the vote was put to the hospital I am certain he would not be voted in because he is unpopular. He is unpopular because he does not play all the diplomatic games with colleagues and he shows his intolerance with time wasters and incompetent people. Sometimes its merely his impatience. So he would surely not be voted in. People generally like nice people and so I could probably whip up some votes but I know I would be the wrong person of the two of us. It would be for self gain alone!
So imagine if that is happening which am sure it is, all the time. If only people really were decent and not selfish or even grandiose. Some people believe in themselves and can spin a good line. The spin doctors. I am Joe public who falls for the spin. Grrrr. Why do I not have foresight and see beyond the spin. I am not a good strategist in my opinion.
"But the move will give Miliband freedom from September to recast the shadow cabinet in his own political image, and promote fresh younger talent currently stuck in the relative obscurity of junior shadow ministerial jobs." (Michael White 24June2011 Guardian). Yes I can see this point. Some system has to be in place. I think actually the more I write and read I too think a chosen cabinet would be most efficient. When employing people, I have always selected people that I believe will fit in with the team and working ethics. The ethics of course are usually set by my own standards in my belief of what the client wanted as a service. I was very demanding and exacting as a boss. I always had incredible teams and clients always, always appreciated the service we offered. It worked. I tried to look after my team too to show my appreciation. We partied hard. Now how would that look to the clients? It would like like self gain I suppose.
With the current system in place, White (2011) reports that "Although the leader is free to appoint any elected member to any portfolio he chooses, those who do well in the elections believe they have earned the right to be handed the more senior jobs." This suggests to me, there is a sort of pool of people and from those he can appoint the best suited to the available position. But the last part of this comment suggests that there is a big expectation for those elected and so if they do not get the job they think they deserve there would probably be discontent and which could result is dissent amongst the staff. Eventually such grievances can attenuate collective rapport and affect the ways in which the party is viewed. There needs to be cohesion and an inability to split the team. PD does such a great job of this even when there are disagreements within the team, he has set the practice up to facilitate forums to create cohesion. Admire him his man management skills. A great leader even though I can feel very angry at times and even question specifics. We can talk about it though without deformation of character. He just needs to do the same with AW now :) .
With what I am reading, I am uncertain how Blair selected his cabinet. Was it the same old way, elections and then selecting from that bunch to specific positions? It is really unclear. I am guessing that as reference is made to the "old way" of internal elections and selecting from those elected has been around for some time including during Blair's reign as Prime Minister. Where can I found out? Not sure. Reading the Internet is not answering my question. I seem to be reading that Blair selected but there is no mention of selecting from an elected pool.
If anyone knows then please do inform me. This comment by White (24Jun2011Guardian) suggests to me that Blair picked his cabinet as he desired. "Lovable Labour left winger John McDonnell was on the radio at dawn complaining that Miliband's move, to be announced in a speech on Saturday, explained to MPs on Monday and put to Labour's party conference in September, would be a lurch back to the bad old "patronage of the Blair era"."
I liked this report from Suzanne Moore - nothing to do with the abolishment but certainly to do with the reforming and re emergence of Labour. I so do not want the Conservatives but I want Labour to shift and grow. Of course I realise that all the talk in the world is not always practical in reality. But surely a good party would be certain they can deliver. I do not trust Conservatives as all they do is blame right now. Blame culture and it starts at the very top of the political system!
I suspect Blue Labour is just another great moving-right show
This new 'blue' ideology seems more conservative than radical, but at least Labour is acknowledging how bad things are for the party
Feeling blue … Miles Davis’s soundtrack to Labour reform?
Very shortly now, most of the population – except the class warriors of the Tory party – will take to the streets to demand the overthrow of capitalism. It won't take long. Overnight, the dignity of labour will be restored, and jobs created. Wealth will be understood to be about more than just money, communities will bond, and the world will live as one.
This is a lovely fantasy ruined by the perpetual failure of the bloomin' working class to head up this revolutionary vanguard. But, comrades, it is even worse than that. Many of "them" don't even bother voting Labour. Can you imagine that? I can, actually, as I grew up in a Tory-voting working-class household and can easily rattle off the explanations for their bad behaviour: the evil manifestations of the rightwing media, consumerism, false consciousness. Or I could say, why should people vote for a party that increasingly does not look like them or speak like them, when they can vote for people who just seem to be in charge anyway?
Finally, though, Labour is on the case. The policy vacuum is trying to suck in some ideas. Historically, oppositions may take more than five years to get in gear, but the fallout from the crash is so severe that there is a kind of desperation around at the moment. Simply hoping that growth doesn't happen, in order to prove the coalition wrong, does not constitute an opposition.
Like many, I long ago lost faith with the Labour party – and indeed the bubble in which much "leftwing debate" takes place. Nonetheless, the old question, "What is the Labour party for?" has to be answered yet again if it is to continue. When I worked at Marxism Today in the late 80s, "the project" evolved from an analysis of Thatcherism that understood the "aspirational" voter. The fruition of this was the coalition of different classes that brought in Blair. Recognising that Labour could never have been elected by appealing only to its traditional vote was key, but now something else has gone wrong. In securing the middle-class vote since 1997, nearly five million of its voters, mainly working-class, have drifted away. If the party is to survive, Labour, now more managerial and bourgeois than ever, needs to find a way to win back what it used to consider its "natural" base.
How can it resuscitate the values that brought the Labour party into being, and appeal to "ordinary people"? One way, I suppose, might be not to sneer at such people. The party's tortuous jargon – "direction of travel" etc – gets it nowhere. Some of this will be knocked out in this weekend's Labour policy review. It will be interesting to see how much influence the Blue Labour strand of thinking has had. Ed Miliband is said to be impressed by this small group, which includes James Purnell and Jon Cruddas. While I don't share much of their thinking, I do at least think they are moving Labour out of denial about how bad things really are.
In trying to claim back the word blue from all its nasty Tory connotations, we are told to think of Miles Davis or Picasso. Or how about just the blues itself? I woke up this morning and my core vote had gone?
The prime mover behind Blue Labour, Maurice Glasman, now in the Lords, is right to say it is not enough for the party to appeal to those former Labour voters who went to the Liberal Democrats – it has to go further, but it cannot do so without what Glasman calls "a plausible ideology". Of the party itself, he says, "It had no narrative of the past 13 years that could explain its lacks of transformative power." Renewal, he argues, will come from a seeming paradox. The party must be "radical and conservative". Conservative in the sense of conserving what is good, whether it be forests or families. It starts, therefore, from a set of values rooted in relationships.
This is part of an attempt to reach out to those who left Labour for the Tories. These are the people who probably read papers you don't like. But Blue Labour is saying to them, it's OK to want a sense of belonging, of decency, of stability, of not being blown around by the gusts of globalisation. Rebutting the New Labour obsession with change, cosmopolitanism and individualism, it looks to a pre-1945 tradition of guilds and co-ops. It talks of family and community and seeks to identify itself with those who feel disoriented and insecure. This is code for talking about crime and immigration. It talks up tradition, not modernity.
This refiguring of terrain is an electoral strategy that may repel the left of the party, but what else is on offer right now? Not the smashing of a system, even though that system has been shown to be so fundamentally flawed.
Much of what Glasman preaches strikes me as more conservative than radical, especially in relation to women. I fail to see how we need more socially conservative policies at a time when women, particularly single parents, are bearing the brunt of these cuts. Part of Labour's "tradition" surely includes embracing women's rights.
All the talk of reciprocity, mutuality, solidarity and civic culture could easily be Red Toryism or "big society" waffle. Except for one thing: the talk of limiting the market and the commodification of human beings. The big society discourse is, in contrast, utterly silent on the market.
Whether any of this will translate into vote-winning policies is debatable, but it is a move out of inertia. Yes, it is mired in nostalgia for the radical conservatism of William Morris or Ruskin, but other parts of the left are currently wallowing in daft strike nostalgia, so denial takes different forms. The public sector has still to take the public with it, though it is heresy to say that. The calculation may well be that the coalition does not need public sector votes anyway.
This is the context in which Miliband will seek to reconnect with the so-called conservative working class. Is this anything other than another great moving-right show? Let's see. It is at least a realisation that the third party does not have years to tell us how it is different from the governing parties. The crash seems to have produced not a desire to limit the market, but to limit our vision. And a desire for familiarity. What is meant to be a paradigm shift is an attempt to make Labour electable. It is pragmatic, not revolutionary. This aim is merely to soften the blows of capitalism with an almost spiritual faith in "relationships". It is, as Cruddas told me, an attempt to start a conversation. Some see Miliband tacking to the left, but I don't agree.
In reality, his seeking to change "the common sense of the age" is a form of cultural politics. Genuinely new and radical politics may well spring up from places we don't yet know, but what we are seeing is the return of what was repressed under New Labour: we are once more talking about class and ideology. Labour needs the working classes again as much as it needs to rewrite its own ideology to attract them. That alone makes me feel kind of blue."
This is a lovely fantasy ruined by the perpetual failure of the bloomin' working class to head up this revolutionary vanguard. But, comrades, it is even worse than that. Many of "them" don't even bother voting Labour. Can you imagine that? I can, actually, as I grew up in a Tory-voting working-class household and can easily rattle off the explanations for their bad behaviour: the evil manifestations of the rightwing media, consumerism, false consciousness. Or I could say, why should people vote for a party that increasingly does not look like them or speak like them, when they can vote for people who just seem to be in charge anyway?
Finally, though, Labour is on the case. The policy vacuum is trying to suck in some ideas. Historically, oppositions may take more than five years to get in gear, but the fallout from the crash is so severe that there is a kind of desperation around at the moment. Simply hoping that growth doesn't happen, in order to prove the coalition wrong, does not constitute an opposition.
Like many, I long ago lost faith with the Labour party – and indeed the bubble in which much "leftwing debate" takes place. Nonetheless, the old question, "What is the Labour party for?" has to be answered yet again if it is to continue. When I worked at Marxism Today in the late 80s, "the project" evolved from an analysis of Thatcherism that understood the "aspirational" voter. The fruition of this was the coalition of different classes that brought in Blair. Recognising that Labour could never have been elected by appealing only to its traditional vote was key, but now something else has gone wrong. In securing the middle-class vote since 1997, nearly five million of its voters, mainly working-class, have drifted away. If the party is to survive, Labour, now more managerial and bourgeois than ever, needs to find a way to win back what it used to consider its "natural" base.
How can it resuscitate the values that brought the Labour party into being, and appeal to "ordinary people"? One way, I suppose, might be not to sneer at such people. The party's tortuous jargon – "direction of travel" etc – gets it nowhere. Some of this will be knocked out in this weekend's Labour policy review. It will be interesting to see how much influence the Blue Labour strand of thinking has had. Ed Miliband is said to be impressed by this small group, which includes James Purnell and Jon Cruddas. While I don't share much of their thinking, I do at least think they are moving Labour out of denial about how bad things really are.
In trying to claim back the word blue from all its nasty Tory connotations, we are told to think of Miles Davis or Picasso. Or how about just the blues itself? I woke up this morning and my core vote had gone?
The prime mover behind Blue Labour, Maurice Glasman, now in the Lords, is right to say it is not enough for the party to appeal to those former Labour voters who went to the Liberal Democrats – it has to go further, but it cannot do so without what Glasman calls "a plausible ideology". Of the party itself, he says, "It had no narrative of the past 13 years that could explain its lacks of transformative power." Renewal, he argues, will come from a seeming paradox. The party must be "radical and conservative". Conservative in the sense of conserving what is good, whether it be forests or families. It starts, therefore, from a set of values rooted in relationships.
This is part of an attempt to reach out to those who left Labour for the Tories. These are the people who probably read papers you don't like. But Blue Labour is saying to them, it's OK to want a sense of belonging, of decency, of stability, of not being blown around by the gusts of globalisation. Rebutting the New Labour obsession with change, cosmopolitanism and individualism, it looks to a pre-1945 tradition of guilds and co-ops. It talks of family and community and seeks to identify itself with those who feel disoriented and insecure. This is code for talking about crime and immigration. It talks up tradition, not modernity.
This refiguring of terrain is an electoral strategy that may repel the left of the party, but what else is on offer right now? Not the smashing of a system, even though that system has been shown to be so fundamentally flawed.
Much of what Glasman preaches strikes me as more conservative than radical, especially in relation to women. I fail to see how we need more socially conservative policies at a time when women, particularly single parents, are bearing the brunt of these cuts. Part of Labour's "tradition" surely includes embracing women's rights.
All the talk of reciprocity, mutuality, solidarity and civic culture could easily be Red Toryism or "big society" waffle. Except for one thing: the talk of limiting the market and the commodification of human beings. The big society discourse is, in contrast, utterly silent on the market.
Whether any of this will translate into vote-winning policies is debatable, but it is a move out of inertia. Yes, it is mired in nostalgia for the radical conservatism of William Morris or Ruskin, but other parts of the left are currently wallowing in daft strike nostalgia, so denial takes different forms. The public sector has still to take the public with it, though it is heresy to say that. The calculation may well be that the coalition does not need public sector votes anyway.
This is the context in which Miliband will seek to reconnect with the so-called conservative working class. Is this anything other than another great moving-right show? Let's see. It is at least a realisation that the third party does not have years to tell us how it is different from the governing parties. The crash seems to have produced not a desire to limit the market, but to limit our vision. And a desire for familiarity. What is meant to be a paradigm shift is an attempt to make Labour electable. It is pragmatic, not revolutionary. This aim is merely to soften the blows of capitalism with an almost spiritual faith in "relationships". It is, as Cruddas told me, an attempt to start a conversation. Some see Miliband tacking to the left, but I don't agree.
In reality, his seeking to change "the common sense of the age" is a form of cultural politics. Genuinely new and radical politics may well spring up from places we don't yet know, but what we are seeing is the return of what was repressed under New Labour: we are once more talking about class and ideology. Labour needs the working classes again as much as it needs to rewrite its own ideology to attract them. That alone makes me feel kind of blue."
So here they all are as of current......
The Shadow Cabinet
Leader of the Labour Party
Ed Miliband
Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development
Harriet Harman
Shadow Chancellor
Ed Balls
Shadow Foreign Secretary
Douglas Alexander
Shadow Chief Whip
Rosie Winterton
Shadow Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities
Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP
Shadow Chief Secretary
Angela Eagle
Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills
John Denham
Cabinet Office and Minister for the Olympics
Tessa Jowell
Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Caroline Flint
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media & Sport
Ivan Lewis
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
Hilary Benn
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence
Jim Murphy
Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Mary Creagh
Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Election Coordinator
Andy Burnham
Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice
Sadiq Khan
Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
Meg Hillier
Shadow Secretary of State for Health
John Healey
Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Shaun Woodward
Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland
Ann McKechin
Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
Maria Eagle
Shadow Secretary of State for Wales
Peter Hain
Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
Liam Byrne
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
Baroness Royall
Shadow Lords Chief Whip
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Shadow Attorney-General
Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC
Also attending Shadow Cabinet meetings:
Shadow Minister of State – Cabinet Office
Jon Trickett
......................................................................................................................
Foreign & Commonwealth
Douglas Alexender
John Spellar
Wayne David
Stephen Twigg
Emma Reynolds
Baroness Symons
Lord Brett
Treasury
Ed Balls
Angela Eagle
David Hanson
Chris Leslie
Kerry McCarthy
Lord Eatwell
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
Justice
Sadiq Khan
Chris Bryant
Helen Goodman
Andy Slaughter
Rob Flello
Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
Lord Bach
Home Office
Yvette Cooper
Vernon Coaker
Gerry Sutcliffe
Diana Johnson
Shabana Mahmood
Clive Efford
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Defence
Jim Murphy
Kevan Jones
Michael Dugher
Russell Brown
Gemma Doyle
Lord Tunnicliffe
Business, Innovation & Skills
John Denham
Gareth Thomas
Ian Lucas
Chuka Umunna
Gordon Marsden
Nia Griffith
Chi Onwurah
Lord Triesman
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Work & Pensions
Liam Byrne
Stephen Timms
Karen Buck
Margaret Curran
Rachel Reeves
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Energy and Climate Change
Meg Hillier
Huw Irranca-Davies
Luciana Berger
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Health
John Healey
Diane Abbott
Emily Thornberry
Derek Twigg
Liz Kendall
Baroness Thornton
Lord Beecham
Education
Andy Burnham
Kevin Brennan
Sharon Hodgson
Iain Wright
Toby Perkins
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
Communities and Local Government
Caroline Flint
Barbara Keeley
Alison Seabeck
Jack Dromey
Chris Williamson
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord Patel of Bradford
Lord Beecham
Transport
Maria Eagle
Jim Fitzpatrick
Andrew Gwynne
John Woodcock
Lord Davies of Oldham
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Mary Creagh
Willie Bain
Jamie Reed
Gavin Shuker
Baroness Quin of Gateshead
International Development
Harriet Harman
Mark Lazarowicz
Rushanara Ali
Lord Brett
Cabinet Office and Minister for the Olympics
Tessa Jowell
Jon Trickett
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Equalities Office
Yvette Cooper
Fiona Mactaggart
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Baroness Thornton
Culture, Olympics, Media & Sport
Ivan Lewis
Ian Austin
Gloria De Piero
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
Baroness Billingham
Law Officers
Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC
Catherine McKinnell
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
Leader of the House of Commons
Hilary Benn
Helen Jones
Leader of the House of Lords
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Deputy Leader)
Northern Ireland
Shaun Woodward
Stephen Pound
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Scotland
Ann McKechin
Tom Greatrex
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
Wales
Peter Hain
Owen Smith
Lord Davies of Oldham
......................................................................................................................
House of Commons
Chief Whip
Rosie Winterton
Whips
Alan Campbell
Tony Cunningham
Lyn Brown
Mark Tami
David Wright
Mark Hendrick
David Hamilton
Dave Anderson
Angela C Smith
Phil Wilson
Lillian Greenwood
Jonathan Reynolds
Graham Jones
Greg McClymont
House of Lords
Chief Whip
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Deputy Chief Whips
Lord Tunnicliffe
Baroness Crawley
Whips
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Baroness Gale
Lord Rosser
Lord Grantchester
Baroness Wheeler
So what do they all do?
I think I could be a whip or certainly a good number 2. I am not wanting to be number 1. No no no. I do not want that. But I can work well as a number 2. It's about knowing your strengths and achieving within that. I used to think it was about getting to the top. It is for the money rewards I suppose and for the special treats that can be creamed off. But a good number 2 is good to get to the top of. So there is a top of everything if you know what I mean and not having to be the top to get a sense of achievement and purpose.
So back to the abolishment. "...most leaders would be autocrats if their colleagues and party constitutions didn't stop them" (White, 2011). I can see that point but at the same time think an effective team comes with clever selection. This I suppose comes down to then believing in what the person is saying they can do, trusting them to pick the right team. No one is going to get it perfectly right and there are lots of ways to skin a cat. Not everyone is going to be happy either. So for Ed to do a good job he has to be able to put across his case, show that he is sincere with a team behind him that also believes in the policy and want to do their best to make it work. There has to be a system by which they can be answerable as well as delivering. This means that things that don't work can be adjsted within the policy or change the policy. Of course that's a delicate operation in itself because any changes have to slot in still with the overall plan ie budgets etc etc.
Wow it's a tricky job and enormous. I used to get stressed just leading the little teams for the companies. And trying to satisfy all when they had different ways of working etc. Phew it was difficult and at times there was the potential to create fractions just to keep the majority happy. This in turn could create a team inbalance and dissent could appear. What a game! Glad not to be in it - I truly am. But at least I think I have some understanding at a very very low level. Poltics is a game really. And the politicians think they have a handle on eerything. Well that's the impression I get. I bet they have doubt and fear too. But they also have a great interest in what theya re doing so would leave them to get on with it but they need "us" along for the ride too. Mmmm and that's interesting too.The Select Committee are voted in. Backbenchers can vote them in rather than whips choosing the committee members. I wonder? I presume they are picked from the party who is in power? Anyway it seems there are systems and systems and sub-systems and no sysytems. It's so complicated. It's a world within a world or a nation within a nation. Not one size fits all. I wonder if it would be better to have smaller communities yet everything is getting bigger isn't it? I see there would be problems but smaller is surely easier to manager. It's just then finding a way to keep smaller within the larger tool. I see that in our work place. We are pretty autonomous. But that means that we don't always want to be involved with the rest of the teams. We see ourselves set apart and different. There are certain staff that we can easily mix with. We are all departmental. Some of us do mix BUT wehave different agendas etc. And then we are accoutable to department heads who are accountable to the overall leader. So it is possible to have smaller units reporting the bigger. On the other hand AA is reversed. Every group is actually autonomous. Leaders are trusted servants not governors and the centralised service points are actually servants to the autonomous groups. But there is no move to try and achieve anything other than to help the person who wants help and to spread the word. Keeping afloat is also autonomous. BUT there is no profits to be mae or big name to be achieved. Costs are low and there is no image to be maintained etc. Simple living and reliant on the individuals who attend. Having tolerance of those who want to contribute more or less. It's a very gentle, mild-mannered existance. It works for all sorts of people too. The difference is what? There is no desire to be more than it is and to attract not promote. It works too.
Well an interesting contemplation of things outside of my knowledge really. It's good to stretch the mind, relate to what I do know from experience, and to try and make sense of things worldly. Now of course is to get some knowledge introlduced to the contemplation. Anyone?
No on ever reads or writes to my Blog. Oh not true, Steenie did sometimes. It would be good if more people, people I don't know even would contribute. Expand the knowledge base. Opinions are opinions and do not have to be right or wrong.
Well it is how it is.
Bliss
XX
No comments:
Post a Comment